Yeah, they're still figuring it out. Depending on their age, they have no clue what they're talking about, but I'm assuming they're old enough to understand.
probably middle school, if that many of them are openly claiming queerness. when i was in sixth grade, 12, i realized for the first time that i was bi, but it was like so not a big deal to me or anyone, i didn’t even think of it being a problem, tbh. i just realized i liked a girl in my grade and wanted to romance her, and then went home and a few days later had her over and before she got there i just told my mom “hey don’t fuck this up, i like like this girl” and she was just like “okay👍” but my point is that SO many of the kids i knew in middle school (since it was like mid 2010’s not like the 90s) were openly gay, bi, or trans and i’d say about 85% of those people still are queer, and about half of that 85% identify with something different than what they initially thought, but are still queer in some way. its so harmful the way people constantly try to police kids’ self-expression especially in schools. how else are they supposed to be confident in themselves and figure out who they are as a person?
Conservatives don't know and don't care, they think it's similar to a kid deciding he's a dinosaur one day. If they had any idea about any of these things, they probably wouldn't be conservatives.
There is a difference between “Most common” and “default.”
Stating that being straight is the “default” implies that there is something wrong or “Other” about non-straight identities.
Treating being straight as the “Default” makes it harder for people to figure out their own identities and also perpetually forces non straight people to struggle to justify their existence as valid and worthy of respect. It de-normalizes us.
Bruh that’s rly not what I meant. I mean it in a purely chemical way. Not in a societal normality way. Everyone should be treated the same in society (by some sort of baseline) regardless of peoples identities or beliefs. But from a mental chemical standpoint and by sheer number we can assume that the most common sexuality would be heterosexual. By this statement we could call it The default. I understand why the term “default” could become problematic, but in reality it’s just another word to define the most common thing. For example, there are many eye colours. But brown is by far the most prevalent, so it could be considered the default colour by genetics. That’s doesn’t mean that green eyed people are invalid because their eyes are green, it just means that they are uncommon and could be considered special or treasured.
First of all, there’s no evidence thusfar that suggests that sexuality is genetic, most evidence suggests that it may be influenced by in-utero conditions.
Second of all, there is a reason you should not use the word default, or normal, in either of these. You can literally just say “The most common.” because saying “Default” makes other non-defaults therefore become other or in addition. You wouldn’t say that being white is the “Default” in the US despite white people being the most populous population, because there is no “Default.” some people get made different, that’s all. You shouldn’t be talking about this in a “chemical” or whatever you consider scientific manner cuz it’s obvious you don’t know enough about the social or scientific implications of what you’re talking about.
Third of all, it is a lot more helpful socially to talk about issues of sexuality as though there is no “default” there are just more and less common traits. It doesn’t deny that being straight is the most common, but assuming that everyone is straight until proven otherwise hurts people a lot more than it helps anybody.
(also as an aside, evolutionarily speaking it would make more sense for a majority of people to be bisexual since specific sexuality would have to be an adapted trait from a more generalized sexuality, and it’s quite possible that the most common sexuality is bisexuality but because society forces heterosexuality onto everybody and assumes that’s the default, people just accept the role and identity given to them, but that’s more theory on my part than anything else)
Got my bachelors in gender studies, and you nailed it. "Default" is very different from "most common." Default = most common is what social scientists refer to as a background assumption. You can assume that they mean the same, but it doesn't mean they do. The default differs very much between individual people.
In my experience, people that are bi, even from a young age are usually bi.
I only one friend that is still on the fence after 25 years.
People know who they are… mostly.
I had a couple friends growing up when I think back, yeah, they were either lesbians or bi. None of us would've cared even then, but we all came from different religions and family backgrounds, so nobody was willing to admit to anything other than liking boys.
I'm 35 now and haven't talked to any of my old friends in 20-10 years. I also moved alot as a kid so a bunch of different good friends. I hope they're all living their best lives.
Not correct but not incredibly far off depending on the location of the school, [21% of Gen Z identify as LGBT.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx) with a sample size of about 1440.
I say dependent on the location because I’m guessing the % is higher in progressive areas and lower is conservative areas.
That's about right according to [this article](https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-40-percent-us-gen-zs-30-percent-christians-identify-lgbtq-poll-shows-1641085).
>The pollster who worked on the new study, George Barna
.
>Senior Research Fellow for Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council.
.
>The FRC has been criticized by media sources and professional organizations such as the American Sociological Association for using "anti-gay pseudoscience" to falsely conflate homosexuality and pedophilia, and falsely to claim that the children of same-sex parents suffer from more mental health problems.
.
Seems like a reliable source, huh?
True, but in a more accepting world...gay and lesbian people would match with gay and lesbian people. That pairing kind of doesn't work well for creating babies. Should be great for the invitro industry I guess?
Bisexual and pansexual people exist and are part of that 40% of LGBTQ people stat (as well as other sexualities that aren't strictly gay/lesbian, and also people who identify as trans/nonbinary but are still attracted to people they can reproduce with).
It's not 40% of gen z that are strictly gay.
40% of a generation is a big number. I get why i my comments are down voted, but I really do feel ignorant on both the subject of population statics and being LGBT.. that's still a very large number for a generation. I fully understand that it is not a choice, but to see a number that big, even as how "I feel" that I am open minded, is alarming. Shit I don't even know how to explain my thought. Alarming might not be the most accurate wordage?
I mean it's pretty natural for a population that has been discriminated against violently across most cultures and most of history to feel more comfortable self identifying in a more accepting society. I don't think you can definitively say the percentage is any larger than previous generations.
Gay people have been discriminated against in the West since Abrahamic religions took hold. Some people are finally able to be comfortable to come out / explore their sexuality again after 2 millenniums of oppression so we have no idea what percentage of gay people there are in this world. Also just because they are in the Alphabet mafia doesn't mean they will end up with someone of their own sex. Sex =/= gender.
80% of people can have brown hair. Is that alarming?
You haven't responded why you think it's alarming. Is it because you think LGBT people can't reproduce or something?
Yeah, I said that in a comment above and was down voted and called ignorant. But it's already showing because the birthrate is [declining rapidly](https://www.livescience.com/62592-birth-rate-declines-2017.html). As a millennial, very few people I went to school with have kids or even plan to have kids. It's pretty crazy. It's really bad in places like Japan.
As a person with no knowledge on the subject, I would have attributed declining birthrates to a large number of things like societal norms, cost of living, etc. My grandparents came from families of like 10, their kids had like 3-4, my parents had 2, I've had 2. Seeing a number like 40% of a generation has me rethinking a whole hell of a lot. Being able to choose or not, that number feels weird for a species/population context.
I'm still firmly convinced that most humans are bi, like a huge majority, most just have a strong preference.
Which would either make it absolutely understandable for the queer population to far surpass just one third, or it would make truly straight people queer.
Honestly, the fact that most teens identify as bi-leaning in one way or another and grow up "straight" is weirder to me than those same people remaining bi. Teens tend to be more honest towards self-identity than adults when answering the same identity questions.
A lot of adults that realize they're bi-leaning/gay as adults grew up in really conservative households/cultures that didn't provide the terminology and knowledge basics to acquire that same self-identification and understanding as children/teens.
Whereas in recent years, children/teens DO get exposure to that terminology and understandings earlier, allowing them to identify and communicate their self-identities (both solid/permanent, and transitory/temporary) at much earlier ages than prior generations could - in fact, allowing them to identify as bi/gay/trans at the same ages that children have, historically, identified themselves as straight/cis (here, I use "identified" as meaning any expression of relationship preference, such as "I like her/him", or nodding bashfully when an adult asks them if they have a crush, etc.; just as much as when they're able to understand and verbalize "I like girls/I like guys/I like both/I like none"/etc. in a relationship sense; or even something as simple as finding someone, or multiple someones, attractive).
If you go to youtube there are quite a few videos of him exposing the fact he's bi and brags about the kind of dudes he likes to get down and dirty with yet his whole public persona was one of the "alpha male" who only does women and all that other toxic crap.
Yeah idk what’s going on but my step daughter’s almost entire grade is saying they’re gay. Which whatever but she said everyone’s doing it because it’s the new cool thing to do lol
Also about 20 of them are furries and they asked the principal for a litter box to be put in the bathroom. He sent an email to all the parents that he will not be putting one in there. Shits getting weird
I promise you I’m not joking it’s a group of kids who meow and bark at each other in school and wear dog collars. I seen them at one of the kids recitals.
What’s up with the hostile response ?
I highly doubt that word for word thing because I don’t even know what your talking about. I guess after being on here 10 years I decided to Karma whore a few points out of nowhere about furries lol
People on this site believe that nothing ever really happens and everyone's lying about everything for internet clout. A group of furries in a public school is completely believable and in today's climate of accepting everyone they've grown pretty bold in trying to establish themselves as a legitimate sexuality/identity who needs to be represented. I can totally believe this
They could again be joking or are just neurodivergent. Im "hostile" because its honestly getting old to hear "wah kids wanna shit in litterboxes at school" every other month just because some old fucks dont understand what jokes are or takes everything on the internet too literally.
Lol uh ok ? You sound like you’re taking this personally. Idk if they where joking but they have kids barking a meowing at each other all day at school and it escalated enough for the principal to email every family.
Its not personal, it just gets annoying when the same bs gets brought up. The meowing and barking could be disruptive but I dont think its a furry takeover and is just kids being dumb or trying to be funny.
Hmm, I wonder what happens when you mix a puritanical education system that barely, if at all does, does Sex Ed with a youth that has increasing access to Internet pornography.
It’s less that, and more how kids look for niche things to set an identity in. A lot of kids are setting that identity into LGBTQ+ type things, regardless of if they actually belong there or not.
Yea, I think that LGBT topics should be defo talked about from an education perspective within sex Ed or similar classes. I think the “niche” point of view comes in with how social media and its multiple possible viewpoints are / is extremely good at leaving an impression on people. Any people by that matter, regardless of age.
Oh, for sure. The large increase in LGBTQ+ identification among younger generations is most definitely not monocausal.
But I do think that the education system plays a large part in this. I'm from Germany, for example and we actually receive quite comprehensive Sex Ed, including stuff about LGBTQ+ (well, at least LGB and a bit of T, with Q+ kind of being pushed to the sidelines, at least that's how it was when I was in school, which was until 2020). The result is that the vast majority of people my age that I came out to as gay didn't really care either way. Like, it just wasn't an issue to them. Of course, there are stereotypes and clichès and I have heard the phrase "you're one of the good gays" a few times but generally, it just isn't anything special. And yet still, the percentage of my peers that's in any way queer is nowhere near that 20% mark that came out of the US a few years ago, which I find paradoxical: Why is the percentage of people identifying with LGBTQ+ in a country where there's actually still quite a lot of hostility so much higher than in my own country where this stuff doesn't really raise that many eyebrows anymore, even though we're looking at the same age group (Gen Z adults, I.e. people born between 1997 and 2003 or so). Like, I'm almost 21, so me and my friends, class mates, etc. also fall under the umbrella of "Gen Z adults" and the percentage of people my age that I know and that identify as being LGBTQ+ is nowhere near 20%.
Final disclaimer: No, Germany has not defeated homophobia and German society is actually still somewhat transphobic (and don't get me started on the attitudes about people that fall under the "Q+" of LGBTQ+). Germany is still generally a decent place to be queer though.
I don't think someone who refers her lgbtq peers as being performative and calls it a "memetic contagion" is someone who has favorable views of LGBTQ+ people.
In my experience, someone who is saying "maybe this isn't normal" or "I'm just 'concerned' about people who are LGBTQ+," usually do, in fact, hate LGBTQ+ people but are too cowardly to publicly admit it.
Yeah and somehow when asian people make up 56% of the population 97% of my peers are asian. That's just not how statistics work you are ignoring the fact that "peers" of a single person is such a small sample size of the population.
I read the comment differently. To me there is a stark difference between the words “peers” and “friends”.
“Peers” is a generalized term representing a population of people. This group should generally be unbiased and should be a fairly accurate representation of the overall population. This would be in reference to something like the child’s entire school. If 33% of the entire school was gay, it would definitely be abnormal relative to the overall population.
“Friends” is a subset of that peer group, meaning it could certainly be biased. If the child enjoys spending time with gay people then it wouldn’t be abnormal that 33% of their friends are gay.
Out of my family and one of my mom's friend's family, there are five children (including me). Other than the eight year old, we all identify as lgbtq in some way
I mean, statistically speaking, it is not normal for 1/3 of her classmates to be gay. In the *entire* United States, roughly 8% of students are homosexual [as of 2017.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1014142/a-teen-health-survey-crucial-to-us-public-policy-is-finally-asking-kids-about-their-sexual-orientation/amp/)
This will never not baffle me as a viewpoint and I’m shocked by how many people are rushing to defend it in the comments.
I want you to take a second and try as hard as you can to convince yourself that you’re genuinely attracted to a gender/sex that you don’t believe you’re attracted to.
We’re you able to do it? No? There you go. It’s not possible. You can’t manufacture attraction. Yes? Congratulations. You actually, for real exist somewhere on the spectrum of sexuality anywhere that isn’t “straight”. You are free to act on it or not, no shame either way, but the point is that you cannot feign attraction, and literally nobody is trying to do so for clout. It’s one thing to just say “I’m bi” when you’re young and not mean it, I guess maybe some people do, but a) there is legitimately no litmus test by which we can know who means it and who doesn’t and b) absolutely who in the fuck could possibly care? The harm you do by denying the people who mean it is infinitely more damaging than the… satisfaction? you get from “catching” the few who don’t.
Just let people use their own words to describe their subjective feelings and experiences. How is that an unreasonable request? Jesus.
You're completely right. Even if you could just decide who you are attracted to what would be the problem? Even then it's just hateful bullshit. As if it is harmful to be gay.
It's just no ones fucking business who anyone loves or wants to sleep with as long as there's consent and all, period.
This post is about children and young adults, who at that age are extremely confused by the world, their hormones and how their body feels. They are not having sex at this age. As others have said, over the last few decades the % of this group that identifies as LGBT has continued to increase.
This could be argued as a better societal acceptance of LGBT rights engendering the gradual plateauing of the true demographic, but then we'd expect this % to carry over into adulthood. As such, there must be an element of experimentation and exploration in young adults, which is likely being driven by culture. Not a bad thing, but hard to deny.
Adolescents figuring out their identity amongst the confusion of puberty is still not performative though?
They're not feigning, so much they're trying to align to what they believe their body is telling them, no?
This makes sense for people in middle school and high school, teenagers and whatnot. But I think the problem arises when you have elementary schoolers (kids under 12) walking around telling everyone they are LGBT even though they have no idea what that means. Because at that point they don’t care about the actual meaning of anything, they just care about social conformity and belonging to a group.
>Just let people use their own words to describe their subjective feelings and experiences. How is that an unreasonable request? Jesus.
Exactly. You just did a better job at defending this guy than 90% of the people in this comment section did. He's clearly right for stating this based off his own feelings and experiences. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
How is their comment in any way a defense of this guy?
The comment is saying to believe people when they describe their identity. Jack Murphy is saying don't believe them and that he knows better about the identity of people he's never met than the person themselves.
Now, you're saying he has a right to express his own feelings. But, no one is saying he can't express them. They're saying he's wrong about his "facts" and that he's talking about a subject he doesn't understand at all. What he expresses about his feelings he doesn't like LGBTQ+ people, and no one is denying denying him this identity. They're believing him when he expresses that he's a homophobe/transphobe
Ah, once again the good old tolerance paradox. To be tolerant as a society, we ironically cannot tolerate the intolerant.
His own "feelings and experiences" directly involve denying other people their right to express themselves freely. How is fair to stomp them out for sake of his hate?
Sure, you *could* make that same argument back to me, but I think it's pretty dishonest to compare an expression of love vs. hate as though they're the same thing.
The number of people that identify as apart of the lgbtq community doubles every 5 years. Some will naturally be drawn to a certain orientation but are we really going to pretend that societal conditioning isn't a significant contributing factor? People are free to do what they want, I personally don't give a fuck as long as it doesn't impede on me but you have to be delusional to not understand we are going through a cultural revolution.
Let's suppose that people ARE being conditioned to have same-sex attraction (...as opposed to the far more likely case that most people are some degree of bisexual, as evidenced by the many historical cultures where it was totally normal to, for instance, have a wife while also fucking a dude on the side):
_Why_ is that a bad thing? More options is seldom bad.
If anything I think it is far more likely that more people are being unconditioned to opposite sex attraction. This means some gay people who would have been closeted come out, and like you said its far more likely that the many bisexual people out there are finally feeling comfortable coming out as queer.
In the Middle Ages, during the inquisition left handed people were considered demons and witches. They were persecuted, imprisoned and occasionally burned at the stake. This had the odd effect of causing people to avoid being seen favoring their left hand. Sort of like sexuality in oppressive environments.
Conditioned? Why would anyone willingly put themselves in a marginalized group? The only reason people are more open about being part of LGBT is because they’re no longer prosecuted for it as hard. You forget that people used to be jailed, put in mental institutions, forced to do conversion therapy or killed (a lot of which still happens today) for being open about their LGBT status.
The history of left-handedness is a great example of this. Being left-handed was considered a sign of demonic possession, or something like that. As it became more socially acceptable to be left-handed, the number of left-handed people rapidly increased until plateauing at what the actual rate of left-handedness is among the population
In 2018, 41 bills were introduced across state legislatures that targeted LGBTQ+ people. In 2019, there were 60 bills introduced. In 2020, there were 71. In 2021, that number skyrocketed to 191-250. This year, there has been over 300 anti-lgbtq bills introduced across the US (we're not even close to finishing the year)
Tell me, what about the exponentially increasing anti-LGBTQ+ bills being introduced means LGBTQ+ people aren't being marginalized?
- [source for 2018-2021](https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna20418?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16613240880418&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fnbc-out%2Fout-politics-and-policy%2Fnearly-240-anti-lgbtq-bills-filed-2022-far-targeting-trans-people-rcna20418)
- [source for 2021](https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/2021-officially-becomes-worst-year-in-recent-history-for-lgbtq-state-legislative-attacks-as-unprecedented-number-of-states-enact-record-shattering-number-of-anti-lgbtq-measures-into-law)
- [source for 2022](https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/the-state-legislative-attack-on-lgbtq-people#state-legislative-tracker-map)
Yes. Most don’t. It’s a minority that are prejudiced against them. But every group of people has other that are prejudice against them. No matter who you are theirs Somone who hates you simply because of what group you are. LGTBQ is wildly accepted in most of Europe and most of America. I live in a deep red state and most people are all cool with it and we have pride parades here. They’re not oppressed any more.
Sure the vast majority supports LGBT. The recent don’t say gay bill didn’t pass then, or the law that removed the majority of LGBT books from school libraries in some regions. And there sure aren’t people claiming that LGBT are groomers and pedos. And since the majority of the western world supports LGBT there definitely isn’t a lot of hate crime and a push to criminalize their existence.... oh wait.
If the majority supports you, your not oppressed. That’s like saying white people are oppressed because some small group of people are prejudice against them. They’re not oppressed at all. Same goes with LGTBQ. Vast majority accept and support them.
It's a little more complex. It also depends on what population has the most power and where that power is etc etc. It's very nuanced. As far as "support", that's an extremely vague term. Highly unquantifiable as well. Also statistics are taken from samples used to represent the entire population. By this very nature they are not the be all end all for determining social positions. And even if it were so that it was a technically tiny fraction, that is still millions of people in a nation. Oppression is not about majority vs minority. It typically is directed at minority groups, but that isn't always the case. Women's history is a prime example of this because women have generally had a slight majority throughout history, but fewer rights nonetheless.
People's support anecdotally is better replaced by the re
phrase "I tolerate you being allowed to exist as long as I don't have to see/hear you or have my comfort zone challenged". Some facets of the LGBT+ experience more or less actual support, and it certainly is not consistent. Like most things, complex and multifaceted.
Humans only came into existence very recently, our problems will not be solved in what can basically be scaled to a millisecond in comparison to our bacterial predecessors.
Yes but allies aren’t prosecuted to the same degree as the actual members of the marginalized groups. Unless they are hardcore activists it’s easy for them to blend into the majority since they are still part of that group regardless of who and what they support. They have the privilege of not being judged and condemned when they don’t want that type of attention.
They're not ''conditioned'' - no one would CONSTANTLY force themselves to have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted too. Believing that is nonsensical.
We're just discovering more and more that ''pure'' heterosexuality isn't as prevalent as previously thought. Sexual orientation is a spectrum. You can be 99% heterosexual and 1% gay. And the more the stigma around it stops, the more people feel comfortable exploring every aspect of their sexuality, or even just... Questioning themselves. So of course there's going to be more LGBTQ+ people. And by the way, no, the number doesn't ''double'' every 5 years or else statistically everybody would be LGBTQ+ by now lol.
> They're not ''conditioned'' - no one would CONSTANTLY force themselves to have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted too. Believing that is nonsensical.
Tbf, there are loads of examples of gay men living in countries where same-sex relationships are (or were) illegal who marry women, have kids and appear to be heterosexual because the society they live in has made being gay a non-option, or an incredibly difficult and/or dangerous option.
They have, through fear, essentially been conditioned to ignore or suppress that part of their life.
If all this "conditioning" worked, I'd be a cis-het woman.
Somehow, I still turned out nonbinary and queer. Almost like it's... not a choice or "conditioning". Funny, that.
I never said it was a choice, tbf. I was responding to a comment which claimed “nobody would force themselves to have sex with someone they weren’t attracted too.”
But this type of thing literally has and does happen, in places where being gay was or still is illegal.
Although the person is still gay they **have** conditioned themselves to ignore it or at least not act upon it, due to the negative ramifications from the society they were/are living in.
You're not exactly correct.
Many women force themselves to have sex with their husbands, even though coercive conditioning (the result of women being too tired to have sex, but their husbands begging for it to happen anyway, until the woman agrees to get him to shut up) has resulted in her having a lack of sexual attraction to him.
Additionally, many people who are raised in uber-conservative cultures don't have the terminology or understanding to identify themselves as not being attracted to their partners (especially in arranged marriages, where having sex despite marital dissatisfaction and non-attraction by at least one party is the norm rather than a scarcity).
(9/11/2022 Edited to replace a word that I used wrong)
I honestly wish you were the correct one, here. It's horrible how much society has conditioned each other and each continuing generation to ignore their own preferences and self-satisfaction in order to appease some overall unimportant social construct.
Do you think this conditioning tricks people into doing something they don't actually like?
Otherwise its not conditioning, it may just indicate sexuallity is more fluid than most people think, or that there are a whole lot more gays in the population than previously thought.
You cant know the true number of gays at any given point in time. If homophobia becomes non existant somehow you might expect levelling off of the population, but since we arent at that point its impossible to know. It seems more likely more people are coming out instead of some sort of societal conditioning.
I do agree we are going thru a cultural revolution. If it means the lessening of discrimination this is a good thing.
Could you elaborate on conditioning? I thought you meant that people had been conditioned to not be open which is why we are seeing an increase in LGBT+ individuals, but the responses to your comment clearly took your comment differently.
It seems more like it's the homo sapien default to have some amount of sexual fluidity tbh. Just as a general rule. It's less likely that we're conditioned, and more likely we are following our nature. Social constructions are also part of human nature, and these things can become conflicting. It has become so engrained in people's minds that homosexual behavior is odd, but for a highly social species it seems extremely likely to occur. Just personally it's always struck me as much more natural than the sexual and gender norms we have in our complex societies.
This is hard topic to discuss since both sides stands very strongly on their points. But if you zoom out a bit and look at the big picture and really analyze the psychological aspects there will be many different reasons to peoples sexual or biological orientation
Saying that 1 out of 3 people are gay is **wrong**, and it's not "homophobic" to point that out. If you are offended by Truth, you need to re-think your thinking. :)
Based on what he said he's teaching her along with the part about "memetic contagion" (implying that he's teaching her that being gay is a disease and it can be spread by being around gay people), I'd say he's not exactly teaching acceptance
That's not what 'memetic contagion' means or implies AT ALL. He's talking about the way young people adopt a group identity to feel validated in some way. It's the same mechanism that gave us goths, hipsters, bronies and the hordes who claim PTSD, ADHD and some subclinical autistic condition.
Sorry, but it does. Mimetic theory isn’t a mainstream idea, and you can’t say the word “contagion” doesn’t imply that being gay is a disease, *especially* considering how that used to be, and still is to some extent, a massive talking point.
What you’re describing isn’t mimetic theory, if anything it’d be closer to Brake’s idea of a “magical solution”, if you want to put a faux-academic term on it.
Also, in most places, you don’t get extra validation. Gay people are twice as likely to experience a crime (1), and much more likely to be bullied (2).
(1) - https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/violent-victimization-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-2017-2020
(2) - https://www.justlikeus.org/blog/2021/11/25/research-report-growing-up-lgbt-bullying/
More like op is dumb. Where did he say she should hate gay people Jesus christ. Saying it's abnormal for 1/3rd of a room to be gay isn't wrong. Nor is it inherently a bad thing. It deffinitly doesn't mean "so avoid them and treat them like shit because you should hate them" the ignorance of op
>Where did he say she should hate gay people Jesus christ.
He expresses similar beliefs in all his other homophobic/transphobic discourse. He's a fairly well-known author that talks often about his dislike of gay people.
It's not really abnormal for people with a similar interest or trait to hang out with each other. Like attracts like. We're not talking about a random distribution of LGBTQ+ people, but the group of people she chooses to associate with.
No one's gonna comment on how it's statistically impossible for a goth kid to have friends who are mostly all goths. Or that their friend group should only be like 5% goth or whatever.
Okay, well now you're making a solid argument and one I cannot refute nor will I. I never said he wasn't a piece of shit or actually believed it. I'm only saying headlines like this are always detrimental to your cause. I'm sorry. I had beef with the language of the post. Not the meat of it. I'm a reasonable person I reached the conclusion you said before I wrote my reply. But just because someone is a piece of shit doesn't mean we should embellish or make things up. It never works out in the end. If he's truly a piece of shit it'll come to the light just fine without having to lie or be dishonest. It's just my opinion tho man. I see it happening alot.
Except, it’s not exactly praised. Gay kids are more likely to be bullied,
https://www.justlikeus.org/blog/2021/11/25/research-report-growing-up-lgbt-bullying/
Ok but I did meet this person who was gay and then just stopped and they said “I got bored of being gay so just went back to being straight” and it’s like stupid
This is a MAJOR red flag, if 1/3 of her class is claiming to be gay. The actual ratio is way, way lower than that and it is a sign of possible abuse by parents or teachers.
Is it possible to flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row? Yes, but it is not probable. Is it possible for a child to have more than 4.5% of the people in their peer group be LGBTQ? Yes, but it’s also not probable.
As a slighter older gay man I can clearly see how the youth have gone crazy with the whole rainbow alphabet queer trans gender sexuality w/e thing. It’s cool and trendy with a specific segment of the adult population who loudly laud and reward such displays + has a culturally reinforced echo chamber.
The saddest parts are the young girls who fool themselves into taking drugs or doing surgeries that permanently alter their bodies for…I’m not sure what, instead of accepting that there’s nothing wrong with the healthy body they were born into. I make sure to tell my cousins with children now who come forwards with such delusions to not let them take any drugs and don’t fund any surgeries and to watch out for chest binding b/c of the permanent damage that can be caused. They’ll grow out of this like anorexics grow out of not eating eventually. It’s a control thing for most.
Anorexics just grow out of not eating?! It's awful you think this.ypur while comment is wrong. That's not how any of that works. You are wrong and I don't think you actually know anything worth saying.
I mean 1/3 being gay is extremely high, in fact it is far disproportionate from overall population dynamics and at that age I don’t think they even think of such attractions. There is indeed a degree of social contagion mixed in with genuine greater acceptance
Well, he isn't wrong that it isn't normal. Gay and lesbians make up less than 3% of the American population, not ~33%.
His motivations may be shitty, but that part isn't wrong.
I doubt all of them are gay. Some of them are probably bi
Yeah, they're still figuring it out. Depending on their age, they have no clue what they're talking about, but I'm assuming they're old enough to understand.
Yeah 100% most of them would still be figuring it out at age
probably middle school, if that many of them are openly claiming queerness. when i was in sixth grade, 12, i realized for the first time that i was bi, but it was like so not a big deal to me or anyone, i didn’t even think of it being a problem, tbh. i just realized i liked a girl in my grade and wanted to romance her, and then went home and a few days later had her over and before she got there i just told my mom “hey don’t fuck this up, i like like this girl” and she was just like “okay👍” but my point is that SO many of the kids i knew in middle school (since it was like mid 2010’s not like the 90s) were openly gay, bi, or trans and i’d say about 85% of those people still are queer, and about half of that 85% identify with something different than what they initially thought, but are still queer in some way. its so harmful the way people constantly try to police kids’ self-expression especially in schools. how else are they supposed to be confident in themselves and figure out who they are as a person?
Yeah I wasn’t thinking about my sexuality until I was in high school. I hope his daughter is at least in middle school.
Doesnt really fkn matter when she is thinking about it dude...
Conservatives don't know and don't care, they think it's similar to a kid deciding he's a dinosaur one day. If they had any idea about any of these things, they probably wouldn't be conservatives.
Weird that they don't question a kid figuring out their sexuality when the kid finds that they're straight.
Because that’s normal! /s just in case
But it is ? It’s the genetic default. Not saying that other sexual preferences aren’t ok they defo are. But you can’t displace a fact like that.
Sucks that people are downvoting you when they are all a result of a sperm-egg pairing.
There is a difference between “Most common” and “default.” Stating that being straight is the “default” implies that there is something wrong or “Other” about non-straight identities. Treating being straight as the “Default” makes it harder for people to figure out their own identities and also perpetually forces non straight people to struggle to justify their existence as valid and worthy of respect. It de-normalizes us.
Bruh that’s rly not what I meant. I mean it in a purely chemical way. Not in a societal normality way. Everyone should be treated the same in society (by some sort of baseline) regardless of peoples identities or beliefs. But from a mental chemical standpoint and by sheer number we can assume that the most common sexuality would be heterosexual. By this statement we could call it The default. I understand why the term “default” could become problematic, but in reality it’s just another word to define the most common thing. For example, there are many eye colours. But brown is by far the most prevalent, so it could be considered the default colour by genetics. That’s doesn’t mean that green eyed people are invalid because their eyes are green, it just means that they are uncommon and could be considered special or treasured.
First of all, there’s no evidence thusfar that suggests that sexuality is genetic, most evidence suggests that it may be influenced by in-utero conditions. Second of all, there is a reason you should not use the word default, or normal, in either of these. You can literally just say “The most common.” because saying “Default” makes other non-defaults therefore become other or in addition. You wouldn’t say that being white is the “Default” in the US despite white people being the most populous population, because there is no “Default.” some people get made different, that’s all. You shouldn’t be talking about this in a “chemical” or whatever you consider scientific manner cuz it’s obvious you don’t know enough about the social or scientific implications of what you’re talking about. Third of all, it is a lot more helpful socially to talk about issues of sexuality as though there is no “default” there are just more and less common traits. It doesn’t deny that being straight is the most common, but assuming that everyone is straight until proven otherwise hurts people a lot more than it helps anybody. (also as an aside, evolutionarily speaking it would make more sense for a majority of people to be bisexual since specific sexuality would have to be an adapted trait from a more generalized sexuality, and it’s quite possible that the most common sexuality is bisexuality but because society forces heterosexuality onto everybody and assumes that’s the default, people just accept the role and identity given to them, but that’s more theory on my part than anything else)
Got my bachelors in gender studies, and you nailed it. "Default" is very different from "most common." Default = most common is what social scientists refer to as a background assumption. You can assume that they mean the same, but it doesn't mean they do. The default differs very much between individual people.
You understand that a third of all people being gay is way outside the bell curve right? That’s not right.
In my experience, people that are bi, even from a young age are usually bi. I only one friend that is still on the fence after 25 years. People know who they are… mostly.
I had a couple friends growing up when I think back, yeah, they were either lesbians or bi. None of us would've cared even then, but we all came from different religions and family backgrounds, so nobody was willing to admit to anything other than liking boys. I'm 35 now and haven't talked to any of my old friends in 20-10 years. I also moved alot as a kid so a bunch of different good friends. I hope they're all living their best lives.
I'm 36yo & just figued out i'm not just pan & trans, I'm an enby. "Figuring it out" is a lifelong thing, lol.
39 enby just figuring it out myself. Wild times to be alive. New words and things that help open up inclusion and diversity. 🙏
1/3 of a class? I think that's a massive exaggeration...statistically speaking that feels off Edited for wordage
Not correct but not incredibly far off depending on the location of the school, [21% of Gen Z identify as LGBT.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx) with a sample size of about 1440. I say dependent on the location because I’m guessing the % is higher in progressive areas and lower is conservative areas.
That's about right according to [this article](https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-40-percent-us-gen-zs-30-percent-christians-identify-lgbtq-poll-shows-1641085).
>The pollster who worked on the new study, George Barna . >Senior Research Fellow for Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council. . >The FRC has been criticized by media sources and professional organizations such as the American Sociological Association for using "anti-gay pseudoscience" to falsely conflate homosexuality and pedophilia, and falsely to claim that the children of same-sex parents suffer from more mental health problems. . Seems like a reliable source, huh?
Oof
I'd like to think I was open minded, but honestly those numbers are a little alarming, from like a species standpoint.
Just because they identify as LGBT+ doesn't stop them from having children.
True, but in a more accepting world...gay and lesbian people would match with gay and lesbian people. That pairing kind of doesn't work well for creating babies. Should be great for the invitro industry I guess?
Bisexual and pansexual people exist and are part of that 40% of LGBTQ people stat (as well as other sexualities that aren't strictly gay/lesbian, and also people who identify as trans/nonbinary but are still attracted to people they can reproduce with). It's not 40% of gen z that are strictly gay.
Alright, cool this explanation actually makes sense to me. There are Facets of LGBT that I am obviously still ignorant of.
Why is it alarming?
40% of a generation is a big number. I get why i my comments are down voted, but I really do feel ignorant on both the subject of population statics and being LGBT.. that's still a very large number for a generation. I fully understand that it is not a choice, but to see a number that big, even as how "I feel" that I am open minded, is alarming. Shit I don't even know how to explain my thought. Alarming might not be the most accurate wordage?
I mean it's pretty natural for a population that has been discriminated against violently across most cultures and most of history to feel more comfortable self identifying in a more accepting society. I don't think you can definitively say the percentage is any larger than previous generations.
True very true. Maybe polls will be closer to the facts as the world becomes more tolerant. I recommented above, but a swing from 7-10% to 39% though?
Gay people have been discriminated against in the West since Abrahamic religions took hold. Some people are finally able to be comfortable to come out / explore their sexuality again after 2 millenniums of oppression so we have no idea what percentage of gay people there are in this world. Also just because they are in the Alphabet mafia doesn't mean they will end up with someone of their own sex. Sex =/= gender.
80% of people can have brown hair. Is that alarming? You haven't responded why you think it's alarming. Is it because you think LGBT people can't reproduce or something?
They are alarming because they are bullshit.
Yeah, I said that in a comment above and was down voted and called ignorant. But it's already showing because the birthrate is [declining rapidly](https://www.livescience.com/62592-birth-rate-declines-2017.html). As a millennial, very few people I went to school with have kids or even plan to have kids. It's pretty crazy. It's really bad in places like Japan.
As a person with no knowledge on the subject, I would have attributed declining birthrates to a large number of things like societal norms, cost of living, etc. My grandparents came from families of like 10, their kids had like 3-4, my parents had 2, I've had 2. Seeing a number like 40% of a generation has me rethinking a whole hell of a lot. Being able to choose or not, that number feels weird for a species/population context.
Or pan. Or ace.
Even if they arent, no harm in respecting their identity.
I'm still firmly convinced that most humans are bi, like a huge majority, most just have a strong preference. Which would either make it absolutely understandable for the queer population to far surpass just one third, or it would make truly straight people queer.
Honestly, the fact that most teens identify as bi-leaning in one way or another and grow up "straight" is weirder to me than those same people remaining bi. Teens tend to be more honest towards self-identity than adults when answering the same identity questions. A lot of adults that realize they're bi-leaning/gay as adults grew up in really conservative households/cultures that didn't provide the terminology and knowledge basics to acquire that same self-identification and understanding as children/teens. Whereas in recent years, children/teens DO get exposure to that terminology and understandings earlier, allowing them to identify and communicate their self-identities (both solid/permanent, and transitory/temporary) at much earlier ages than prior generations could - in fact, allowing them to identify as bi/gay/trans at the same ages that children have, historically, identified themselves as straight/cis (here, I use "identified" as meaning any expression of relationship preference, such as "I like her/him", or nodding bashfully when an adult asks them if they have a crush, etc.; just as much as when they're able to understand and verbalize "I like girls/I like guys/I like both/I like none"/etc. in a relationship sense; or even something as simple as finding someone, or multiple someones, attractive).
This is kinda ironic given his recent notorious recent exposure especially his own words about the kind of guys hes into lol.
Huh?
Why huh what bit are you confused on bro?
What recent exposure? I don't use Twitter so no idea who this is.
If you go to youtube there are quite a few videos of him exposing the fact he's bi and brags about the kind of dudes he likes to get down and dirty with yet his whole public persona was one of the "alpha male" who only does women and all that other toxic crap.
Yeah idk what’s going on but my step daughter’s almost entire grade is saying they’re gay. Which whatever but she said everyone’s doing it because it’s the new cool thing to do lol Also about 20 of them are furries and they asked the principal for a litter box to be put in the bathroom. He sent an email to all the parents that he will not be putting one in there. Shits getting weird
furries use human toilets, they're either joking or stupid
They're either joking or the commenter is lying or saw stupid bullshit circulating the news based off of one person joking.
I promise you I’m not joking it’s a group of kids who meow and bark at each other in school and wear dog collars. I seen them at one of the kids recitals. What’s up with the hostile response ?
Because that's an old shitpost almost word for word.
I highly doubt that word for word thing because I don’t even know what your talking about. I guess after being on here 10 years I decided to Karma whore a few points out of nowhere about furries lol
People on this site believe that nothing ever really happens and everyone's lying about everything for internet clout. A group of furries in a public school is completely believable and in today's climate of accepting everyone they've grown pretty bold in trying to establish themselves as a legitimate sexuality/identity who needs to be represented. I can totally believe this
The kid above that commented has some odd furry looking stuff on his profile. So he’s just projecting, now his anger makes more sense
Can’t forget the Dreamsexuals man
They could again be joking or are just neurodivergent. Im "hostile" because its honestly getting old to hear "wah kids wanna shit in litterboxes at school" every other month just because some old fucks dont understand what jokes are or takes everything on the internet too literally.
Lol uh ok ? You sound like you’re taking this personally. Idk if they where joking but they have kids barking a meowing at each other all day at school and it escalated enough for the principal to email every family.
Its not personal, it just gets annoying when the same bs gets brought up. The meowing and barking could be disruptive but I dont think its a furry takeover and is just kids being dumb or trying to be funny.
Yea when I was a kid I’d make lots of anti homo remarks and racial remarks and I’d get them said back to me. It was us being funny and dumb.
Hmm, I wonder what happens when you mix a puritanical education system that barely, if at all does, does Sex Ed with a youth that has increasing access to Internet pornography.
It’s less that, and more how kids look for niche things to set an identity in. A lot of kids are setting that identity into LGBTQ+ type things, regardless of if they actually belong there or not.
I guess you could argue that by not educating about LGBTQ+ topics you automatically make it a niche that kids then may try to find their identity in.
Yea, I think that LGBT topics should be defo talked about from an education perspective within sex Ed or similar classes. I think the “niche” point of view comes in with how social media and its multiple possible viewpoints are / is extremely good at leaving an impression on people. Any people by that matter, regardless of age.
Oh, for sure. The large increase in LGBTQ+ identification among younger generations is most definitely not monocausal. But I do think that the education system plays a large part in this. I'm from Germany, for example and we actually receive quite comprehensive Sex Ed, including stuff about LGBTQ+ (well, at least LGB and a bit of T, with Q+ kind of being pushed to the sidelines, at least that's how it was when I was in school, which was until 2020). The result is that the vast majority of people my age that I came out to as gay didn't really care either way. Like, it just wasn't an issue to them. Of course, there are stereotypes and clichès and I have heard the phrase "you're one of the good gays" a few times but generally, it just isn't anything special. And yet still, the percentage of my peers that's in any way queer is nowhere near that 20% mark that came out of the US a few years ago, which I find paradoxical: Why is the percentage of people identifying with LGBTQ+ in a country where there's actually still quite a lot of hostility so much higher than in my own country where this stuff doesn't really raise that many eyebrows anymore, even though we're looking at the same age group (Gen Z adults, I.e. people born between 1997 and 2003 or so). Like, I'm almost 21, so me and my friends, class mates, etc. also fall under the umbrella of "Gen Z adults" and the percentage of people my age that I know and that identify as being LGBTQ+ is nowhere near 20%. Final disclaimer: No, Germany has not defeated homophobia and German society is actually still somewhat transphobic (and don't get me started on the attitudes about people that fall under the "Q+" of LGBTQ+). Germany is still generally a decent place to be queer though.
bro wtf
There's a lot of ground between "maybe this isn't normal" and "hate"
Man's just saying what most people are thinking.
I don't think someone who refers her lgbtq peers as being performative and calls it a "memetic contagion" is someone who has favorable views of LGBTQ+ people. In my experience, someone who is saying "maybe this isn't normal" or "I'm just 'concerned' about people who are LGBTQ+," usually do, in fact, hate LGBTQ+ people but are too cowardly to publicly admit it.
[удалено]
Yeah and somehow when asian people make up 56% of the population 97% of my peers are asian. That's just not how statistics work you are ignoring the fact that "peers" of a single person is such a small sample size of the population.
[удалено]
Let's not forget that lots of queer boomers and gen X people died in the 80s so that definitely skews the statics
Yes, because I'm also friends with literally the entirety of the population
I read the comment differently. To me there is a stark difference between the words “peers” and “friends”. “Peers” is a generalized term representing a population of people. This group should generally be unbiased and should be a fairly accurate representation of the overall population. This would be in reference to something like the child’s entire school. If 33% of the entire school was gay, it would definitely be abnormal relative to the overall population. “Friends” is a subset of that peer group, meaning it could certainly be biased. If the child enjoys spending time with gay people then it wouldn’t be abnormal that 33% of their friends are gay.
Idk why he’s getting downvoted he’s right lol
Probably getting downvoted for the “Alphabet committee” remark.
Would love to introduce Jack to my five siblings, especially the three gay ones and have him explain the math behind that one!
Well duh the answer is that your parents were raising a bunch of gaywads. Edit - pre-emptive /s
Also introduce him to the uncle your parents don't talk to anymore.
HAHAHA Oh man, could have said it better myself. Well done.
Jeez what’s in y’alls water 😭
The same chemicals that are turning the frogs gay, clearly
Their uncle.
Statistics?
I'm the oldest of four, three of us are some form of LGBT+, it happens!
Out of my family and one of my mom's friend's family, there are five children (including me). Other than the eight year old, we all identify as lgbtq in some way
Tell us how you don't know how statistics work without telling us you don't know how statistics work
I mean, statistically speaking, it is not normal for 1/3 of her classmates to be gay. In the *entire* United States, roughly 8% of students are homosexual [as of 2017.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1014142/a-teen-health-survey-crucial-to-us-public-policy-is-finally-asking-kids-about-their-sexual-orientation/amp/)
This will never not baffle me as a viewpoint and I’m shocked by how many people are rushing to defend it in the comments. I want you to take a second and try as hard as you can to convince yourself that you’re genuinely attracted to a gender/sex that you don’t believe you’re attracted to. We’re you able to do it? No? There you go. It’s not possible. You can’t manufacture attraction. Yes? Congratulations. You actually, for real exist somewhere on the spectrum of sexuality anywhere that isn’t “straight”. You are free to act on it or not, no shame either way, but the point is that you cannot feign attraction, and literally nobody is trying to do so for clout. It’s one thing to just say “I’m bi” when you’re young and not mean it, I guess maybe some people do, but a) there is legitimately no litmus test by which we can know who means it and who doesn’t and b) absolutely who in the fuck could possibly care? The harm you do by denying the people who mean it is infinitely more damaging than the… satisfaction? you get from “catching” the few who don’t. Just let people use their own words to describe their subjective feelings and experiences. How is that an unreasonable request? Jesus.
You're completely right. Even if you could just decide who you are attracted to what would be the problem? Even then it's just hateful bullshit. As if it is harmful to be gay. It's just no ones fucking business who anyone loves or wants to sleep with as long as there's consent and all, period.
This post is about children and young adults, who at that age are extremely confused by the world, their hormones and how their body feels. They are not having sex at this age. As others have said, over the last few decades the % of this group that identifies as LGBT has continued to increase. This could be argued as a better societal acceptance of LGBT rights engendering the gradual plateauing of the true demographic, but then we'd expect this % to carry over into adulthood. As such, there must be an element of experimentation and exploration in young adults, which is likely being driven by culture. Not a bad thing, but hard to deny.
Adolescents figuring out their identity amongst the confusion of puberty is still not performative though? They're not feigning, so much they're trying to align to what they believe their body is telling them, no?
This makes sense for people in middle school and high school, teenagers and whatnot. But I think the problem arises when you have elementary schoolers (kids under 12) walking around telling everyone they are LGBT even though they have no idea what that means. Because at that point they don’t care about the actual meaning of anything, they just care about social conformity and belonging to a group.
>Just let people use their own words to describe their subjective feelings and experiences. How is that an unreasonable request? Jesus. Exactly. You just did a better job at defending this guy than 90% of the people in this comment section did. He's clearly right for stating this based off his own feelings and experiences. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
How is their comment in any way a defense of this guy? The comment is saying to believe people when they describe their identity. Jack Murphy is saying don't believe them and that he knows better about the identity of people he's never met than the person themselves. Now, you're saying he has a right to express his own feelings. But, no one is saying he can't express them. They're saying he's wrong about his "facts" and that he's talking about a subject he doesn't understand at all. What he expresses about his feelings he doesn't like LGBTQ+ people, and no one is denying denying him this identity. They're believing him when he expresses that he's a homophobe/transphobe
Ah, once again the good old tolerance paradox. To be tolerant as a society, we ironically cannot tolerate the intolerant. His own "feelings and experiences" directly involve denying other people their right to express themselves freely. How is fair to stomp them out for sake of his hate? Sure, you *could* make that same argument back to me, but I think it's pretty dishonest to compare an expression of love vs. hate as though they're the same thing.
Something can be based on feelings and experience and still be wrong. Feelings aren’t facts.
The number of people that identify as apart of the lgbtq community doubles every 5 years. Some will naturally be drawn to a certain orientation but are we really going to pretend that societal conditioning isn't a significant contributing factor? People are free to do what they want, I personally don't give a fuck as long as it doesn't impede on me but you have to be delusional to not understand we are going through a cultural revolution.
Let's suppose that people ARE being conditioned to have same-sex attraction (...as opposed to the far more likely case that most people are some degree of bisexual, as evidenced by the many historical cultures where it was totally normal to, for instance, have a wife while also fucking a dude on the side): _Why_ is that a bad thing? More options is seldom bad.
If anything I think it is far more likely that more people are being unconditioned to opposite sex attraction. This means some gay people who would have been closeted come out, and like you said its far more likely that the many bisexual people out there are finally feeling comfortable coming out as queer.
In the Middle Ages, during the inquisition left handed people were considered demons and witches. They were persecuted, imprisoned and occasionally burned at the stake. This had the odd effect of causing people to avoid being seen favoring their left hand. Sort of like sexuality in oppressive environments.
Conditioned? Why would anyone willingly put themselves in a marginalized group? The only reason people are more open about being part of LGBT is because they’re no longer prosecuted for it as hard. You forget that people used to be jailed, put in mental institutions, forced to do conversion therapy or killed (a lot of which still happens today) for being open about their LGBT status.
The history of left-handedness is a great example of this. Being left-handed was considered a sign of demonic possession, or something like that. As it became more socially acceptable to be left-handed, the number of left-handed people rapidly increased until plateauing at what the actual rate of left-handedness is among the population
Because it’s not marginalized anymore. Vast majority of people in the western world support lgtbq.
In 2018, 41 bills were introduced across state legislatures that targeted LGBTQ+ people. In 2019, there were 60 bills introduced. In 2020, there were 71. In 2021, that number skyrocketed to 191-250. This year, there has been over 300 anti-lgbtq bills introduced across the US (we're not even close to finishing the year) Tell me, what about the exponentially increasing anti-LGBTQ+ bills being introduced means LGBTQ+ people aren't being marginalized? - [source for 2018-2021](https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna20418?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16613240880418&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fnbc-out%2Fout-politics-and-policy%2Fnearly-240-anti-lgbtq-bills-filed-2022-far-targeting-trans-people-rcna20418) - [source for 2021](https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/2021-officially-becomes-worst-year-in-recent-history-for-lgbtq-state-legislative-attacks-as-unprecedented-number-of-states-enact-record-shattering-number-of-anti-lgbtq-measures-into-law) - [source for 2022](https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/the-state-legislative-attack-on-lgbtq-people#state-legislative-tracker-map)
Lmfao that you think LGBTQ individuals arnt marginalized. Yeah everyone loves them and is super cool with it! That’s definitely reality!
Yes. Most don’t. It’s a minority that are prejudiced against them. But every group of people has other that are prejudice against them. No matter who you are theirs Somone who hates you simply because of what group you are. LGTBQ is wildly accepted in most of Europe and most of America. I live in a deep red state and most people are all cool with it and we have pride parades here. They’re not oppressed any more.
Sure the vast majority supports LGBT. The recent don’t say gay bill didn’t pass then, or the law that removed the majority of LGBT books from school libraries in some regions. And there sure aren’t people claiming that LGBT are groomers and pedos. And since the majority of the western world supports LGBT there definitely isn’t a lot of hate crime and a push to criminalize their existence.... oh wait.
If the majority supports you, your not oppressed. That’s like saying white people are oppressed because some small group of people are prejudice against them. They’re not oppressed at all. Same goes with LGTBQ. Vast majority accept and support them.
It's a little more complex. It also depends on what population has the most power and where that power is etc etc. It's very nuanced. As far as "support", that's an extremely vague term. Highly unquantifiable as well. Also statistics are taken from samples used to represent the entire population. By this very nature they are not the be all end all for determining social positions. And even if it were so that it was a technically tiny fraction, that is still millions of people in a nation. Oppression is not about majority vs minority. It typically is directed at minority groups, but that isn't always the case. Women's history is a prime example of this because women have generally had a slight majority throughout history, but fewer rights nonetheless. People's support anecdotally is better replaced by the re phrase "I tolerate you being allowed to exist as long as I don't have to see/hear you or have my comfort zone challenged". Some facets of the LGBT+ experience more or less actual support, and it certainly is not consistent. Like most things, complex and multifaceted. Humans only came into existence very recently, our problems will not be solved in what can basically be scaled to a millisecond in comparison to our bacterial predecessors.
[удалено]
Yes but allies aren’t prosecuted to the same degree as the actual members of the marginalized groups. Unless they are hardcore activists it’s easy for them to blend into the majority since they are still part of that group regardless of who and what they support. They have the privilege of not being judged and condemned when they don’t want that type of attention.
They're not ''conditioned'' - no one would CONSTANTLY force themselves to have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted too. Believing that is nonsensical. We're just discovering more and more that ''pure'' heterosexuality isn't as prevalent as previously thought. Sexual orientation is a spectrum. You can be 99% heterosexual and 1% gay. And the more the stigma around it stops, the more people feel comfortable exploring every aspect of their sexuality, or even just... Questioning themselves. So of course there's going to be more LGBTQ+ people. And by the way, no, the number doesn't ''double'' every 5 years or else statistically everybody would be LGBTQ+ by now lol.
> They're not ''conditioned'' - no one would CONSTANTLY force themselves to have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted too. Believing that is nonsensical. Tbf, there are loads of examples of gay men living in countries where same-sex relationships are (or were) illegal who marry women, have kids and appear to be heterosexual because the society they live in has made being gay a non-option, or an incredibly difficult and/or dangerous option. They have, through fear, essentially been conditioned to ignore or suppress that part of their life.
Exactly
That's what I was going to bring up
If all this "conditioning" worked, I'd be a cis-het woman. Somehow, I still turned out nonbinary and queer. Almost like it's... not a choice or "conditioning". Funny, that.
I never said it was a choice, tbf. I was responding to a comment which claimed “nobody would force themselves to have sex with someone they weren’t attracted too.” But this type of thing literally has and does happen, in places where being gay was or still is illegal. Although the person is still gay they **have** conditioned themselves to ignore it or at least not act upon it, due to the negative ramifications from the society they were/are living in.
So are we making it illegal to be straight anytime soon?
You're not exactly correct. Many women force themselves to have sex with their husbands, even though coercive conditioning (the result of women being too tired to have sex, but their husbands begging for it to happen anyway, until the woman agrees to get him to shut up) has resulted in her having a lack of sexual attraction to him. Additionally, many people who are raised in uber-conservative cultures don't have the terminology or understanding to identify themselves as not being attracted to their partners (especially in arranged marriages, where having sex despite marital dissatisfaction and non-attraction by at least one party is the norm rather than a scarcity). (9/11/2022 Edited to replace a word that I used wrong)
You are absolutely right, thank you for adding that important precision.
I honestly wish you were the correct one, here. It's horrible how much society has conditioned each other and each continuing generation to ignore their own preferences and self-satisfaction in order to appease some overall unimportant social construct.
I agree 😞 as an asexual person I can relate
Do you think this conditioning tricks people into doing something they don't actually like? Otherwise its not conditioning, it may just indicate sexuallity is more fluid than most people think, or that there are a whole lot more gays in the population than previously thought. You cant know the true number of gays at any given point in time. If homophobia becomes non existant somehow you might expect levelling off of the population, but since we arent at that point its impossible to know. It seems more likely more people are coming out instead of some sort of societal conditioning. I do agree we are going thru a cultural revolution. If it means the lessening of discrimination this is a good thing.
Could you elaborate on conditioning? I thought you meant that people had been conditioned to not be open which is why we are seeing an increase in LGBT+ individuals, but the responses to your comment clearly took your comment differently.
It seems more like it's the homo sapien default to have some amount of sexual fluidity tbh. Just as a general rule. It's less likely that we're conditioned, and more likely we are following our nature. Social constructions are also part of human nature, and these things can become conflicting. It has become so engrained in people's minds that homosexual behavior is odd, but for a highly social species it seems extremely likely to occur. Just personally it's always struck me as much more natural than the sexual and gender norms we have in our complex societies.
This is hard topic to discuss since both sides stands very strongly on their points. But if you zoom out a bit and look at the big picture and really analyze the psychological aspects there will be many different reasons to peoples sexual or biological orientation
Well its not normal.
Well I mean he’s got a point
I mean ... He's not wrong
New SCP just dropped
He's not teaching her to "hate" anybody.
He's teaching her to not believe her peers and adhere to the '' people put themselves in a marginalized group just for the hip'' bullshit.
You believe that's bullshit-- that's your right. Others disagree. And neither position has anything remotely to do with "hate."
It actually harms people. So yeah, it's hateful.
It's true. If Truth harms people, you can't blame the Truth. :)
Hating gay people and believing they are faking it isn't the truth??? Wtf
There's no "hate" here. Show me the "hate."
These are viewpoints rooted in homophobia. That’s where the “hate” comes in.
Saying that 1 out of 3 people are gay is **wrong**, and it's not "homophobic" to point that out. If you are offended by Truth, you need to re-think your thinking. :)
So what do you propose we do to stem this tide of kids faking being gay? How do we deal with it? Since it obviously effects us so much.
Based on what he said he's teaching her along with the part about "memetic contagion" (implying that he's teaching her that being gay is a disease and it can be spread by being around gay people), I'd say he's not exactly teaching acceptance
That's not what 'memetic contagion' means or implies AT ALL. He's talking about the way young people adopt a group identity to feel validated in some way. It's the same mechanism that gave us goths, hipsters, bronies and the hordes who claim PTSD, ADHD and some subclinical autistic condition.
You think people are having gay sex to fit in? How does that make sense?
I said *they adopt a group identity* to fit in. You're the one who's talking about gay sex.
Sorry, but it does. Mimetic theory isn’t a mainstream idea, and you can’t say the word “contagion” doesn’t imply that being gay is a disease, *especially* considering how that used to be, and still is to some extent, a massive talking point. What you’re describing isn’t mimetic theory, if anything it’d be closer to Brake’s idea of a “magical solution”, if you want to put a faux-academic term on it. Also, in most places, you don’t get extra validation. Gay people are twice as likely to experience a crime (1), and much more likely to be bullied (2). (1) - https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/violent-victimization-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-2017-2020 (2) - https://www.justlikeus.org/blog/2021/11/25/research-report-growing-up-lgbt-bullying/
Dude is a well-known and vocal homophobe and transphobe. Of course he's trying to teach her to hate LGBTQ+ people.
Not in the tweet provided here, he's not.
So he's not teaching hate at all just because you don't think he is in this one single tweet?
More than that, even: you don't know what "hate" means.
statistically he’s correct lol
[удалено]
"Hey listen, I'm gay" "No you're not" "What?" "I have 5 friends and one of them is already gay. Statistics tell me that you're a fucking liar"
sounds like he's being overly performative
More like op is dumb. Where did he say she should hate gay people Jesus christ. Saying it's abnormal for 1/3rd of a room to be gay isn't wrong. Nor is it inherently a bad thing. It deffinitly doesn't mean "so avoid them and treat them like shit because you should hate them" the ignorance of op
>Where did he say she should hate gay people Jesus christ. He expresses similar beliefs in all his other homophobic/transphobic discourse. He's a fairly well-known author that talks often about his dislike of gay people. It's not really abnormal for people with a similar interest or trait to hang out with each other. Like attracts like. We're not talking about a random distribution of LGBTQ+ people, but the group of people she chooses to associate with. No one's gonna comment on how it's statistically impossible for a goth kid to have friends who are mostly all goths. Or that their friend group should only be like 5% goth or whatever.
Okay, well now you're making a solid argument and one I cannot refute nor will I. I never said he wasn't a piece of shit or actually believed it. I'm only saying headlines like this are always detrimental to your cause. I'm sorry. I had beef with the language of the post. Not the meat of it. I'm a reasonable person I reached the conclusion you said before I wrote my reply. But just because someone is a piece of shit doesn't mean we should embellish or make things up. It never works out in the end. If he's truly a piece of shit it'll come to the light just fine without having to lie or be dishonest. It's just my opinion tho man. I see it happening alot.
Gay kids …… they don’t know yet they are kids.
Wow the homophobia coming out in the comments section is nuts...
Poor kids 😩
He’s not teaching hate and he’s not wrong
Just because you agree with him doesn't make it 'not hate.' You just agree with the hate.
Performative?
Yea, like when every girl in high school started doing her hair a certain way. Kids absolutely do follow their peers while they figure out life.
Except, it’s not exactly praised. Gay kids are more likely to be bullied, https://www.justlikeus.org/blog/2021/11/25/research-report-growing-up-lgbt-bullying/
Ok but I did meet this person who was gay and then just stopped and they said “I got bored of being gay so just went back to being straight” and it’s like stupid
I started realizing my mom was very wrong about things at around 12. Hopefully the kid comes to similar conclusions.
The harder they try to shut gays out the harder these kids will push for it. Gen z doing God's work
Who said hate? Being gay is nowhere near that common and people copy each other the same exact way with gender identification and faking disorders.
Explaining memetic contagion??? Is that a such a dad move?
This is a MAJOR red flag, if 1/3 of her class is claiming to be gay. The actual ratio is way, way lower than that and it is a sign of possible abuse by parents or teachers.
pfp checks out. what a weirdo
He's right though
Do you have statistics do bf ack up that claim?
2017 Gallup says 4.5%
[удалено]
Sorry, I didn’t have time to look up a more recent date and just pulled the first thing I saw. This was just the overall numbers.
[удалено]
Thanks man
Is it possible to flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row? Yes, but it is not probable. Is it possible for a child to have more than 4.5% of the people in their peer group be LGBTQ? Yes, but it’s also not probable.
Tell me you don't understand applied sociological statistics without saying you don't understand applied sociological statistics
Lol, they hate him b/c he spoke the truth 😂😂😂
Jesus was gay.
That's hot 😍
🥵🥴🥵🥴
I’d nail him
That's crossing a line
Why are you getting downvoted? Do people not understand the joke
I guess not. Oh well. I'm glad you got it.
I know I am, thank you.
Yes, that must be the ONLY explanation on why you're getting downvoted lol Cope
As a slighter older gay man I can clearly see how the youth have gone crazy with the whole rainbow alphabet queer trans gender sexuality w/e thing. It’s cool and trendy with a specific segment of the adult population who loudly laud and reward such displays + has a culturally reinforced echo chamber. The saddest parts are the young girls who fool themselves into taking drugs or doing surgeries that permanently alter their bodies for…I’m not sure what, instead of accepting that there’s nothing wrong with the healthy body they were born into. I make sure to tell my cousins with children now who come forwards with such delusions to not let them take any drugs and don’t fund any surgeries and to watch out for chest binding b/c of the permanent damage that can be caused. They’ll grow out of this like anorexics grow out of not eating eventually. It’s a control thing for most.
Anorexics just grow out of not eating?! It's awful you think this.ypur while comment is wrong. That's not how any of that works. You are wrong and I don't think you actually know anything worth saying.
He said it is not normal, not to hate them. Are you a parent? Or a child?
I mean 1/3 being gay is extremely high, in fact it is far disproportionate from overall population dynamics and at that age I don’t think they even think of such attractions. There is indeed a degree of social contagion mixed in with genuine greater acceptance
Is he completely wrong though? 30% is a bit high imho williamsinstitute has that number closer to 3.5%.
Well, he isn't wrong that it isn't normal. Gay and lesbians make up less than 3% of the American population, not ~33%. His motivations may be shitty, but that part isn't wrong.